5 ms·

Are permissive licenses also "screwing over the community"? Those also allow third parties to use the code in proprietary software. What difference does it make

by mrob 3y ago

Are permissive licenses also "screwing over the community"? Those also allow third parties to use the code in proprietary software. What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this?

fabrice_d 3y ago
Yes using permissive license allows businesses to take unfair advantage of the work done by the community for their own profit without contributing anything, but it's explicit in the license terms. When you go with *GPL + CLA, it's more subtle: bad things can happen, but pinky promises are made that won't be the case. We've seen that movie before of course. As a community contributor, I may not want my contributions to be used to enrich a corporation that doesn't give back to the commons.
LaGrange 3y ago
Yes. That's why you shouldn't contribute to software on permissive licenses. > What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this? Without that, Element would have to either pay people their fair share, or _leave_. They're not a charity, they're not doing this "for us," they're just extracting free labor.
- kragen 3y ago
  probably you should only sign the cla if they pay you enough
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    The easiest route towards that might be contract work or employment.
    - kragen 3y ago
      that'll depend on the preferences of the individual contributor; some might be perfectly content with a single lump-sum payment for signing the cla, but it's true that it might be difficult for the company to negotiate something so simple with other contributors
- tensor 3y ago
  Personally I would never contribute to AGPL software. I don’t want my contribution to forever be stuck in some political movement. I do contribute to permissive licensed software.
  - LaGrange 3y ago
    That sounds quite sad.
NoGravitas 3y ago
Honestly? Yes. Permissive licenses are one of several reasons that the net effect of Open Source software has been a net negative in terms of software freedom.

by mrob 3y ago

fabrice_d 3y ago

Yes using permissive license allows businesses to take unfair advantage of the work done by the community for their own profit without contributing anything, but it's explicit in the license terms. When you go with *GPL + CLA, it's more subtle: bad things can happen, but pinky promises are made that won't be the case. We've seen that movie before of course. As a community contributor, I may not want my contributions to be used to enrich a corporation that doesn't give back to the commons.

LaGrange 3y ago

Yes. That's why you shouldn't contribute to software on permissive licenses. > What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this? Without that, Element would have to either pay people their fair share, or _leave_. They're not a charity, they're not doing this "for us," they're just extracting free labor.

kragen 3y ago
probably you should only sign the cla if they pay you enough
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  The easiest route towards that might be contract work or employment.
  - kragen 3y ago
    that'll depend on the preferences of the individual contributor; some might be perfectly content with a single lump-sum payment for signing the cla, but it's true that it might be difficult for the company to negotiate something so simple with other contributors
tensor 3y ago
Personally I would never contribute to AGPL software. I don’t want my contribution to forever be stuck in some political movement. I do contribute to permissive licensed software.
- LaGrange 3y ago
  That sounds quite sad.

NoGravitas 3y ago

Honestly? Yes. Permissive licenses are one of several reasons that the net effect of Open Source software has been a net negative in terms of software freedom.